A New Xbox One Blunder: Call of Duty Ghosts Will Only Run at 720p

In what can only be described as the worst-possible gut-check moment for potential Xbox One customers, the game makers responsible for the eagerly-awaited blockbuster "Call of Duty: Ghosts" revealed some bad news this week. The version of the game for Microsoft's Xbox One console will only run at a lowly 720p, while the Sony PlayStation 4 version will run at a superior 1080p resolution. Is this the final nail in the coffin for Xbox One with hard core gamers?

Partisan gamers have been fighting a virtual battle of "which console is best" ever since Microsoft and Sony announced their next-gen consoles earlier this year. (Actually, since before that, but whatever: A lack of facts has never gotten in the way of a good deathmatch.) In recent weeks, a growing vocal contingent of Sony PlayStation 4 fans has somehow gotten the upper hand, claiming that despite nearly identical specifications, their favorite console was somehow more powerful than the Xbox One.

And then this happened.

Infinity Ward executive producer Mark Rubin revealed via Twitter that the PS4 version of "Ghosts" would indeed run at a higher resolution than the Xbox One version. The reason: The Xbox One can't keep up.

Here's his tweet:

Hey, been on the road last couple weeks so haven't had a chance to update, but wanted to confirm that for Xbox One we're 1080p upscaled from 720p. And, we're native 1080p on PS4. We optimized each console to hit 60 FPS [frames per second] and the game looks great on both. Still on the road, but glad to see the great reception to Extinction. Can’t wait for next week's launch.

To recap what this means: Ghosts runs at 60 FPS at 1080p, the native resolution of the game. But to achieve this speed on Xbox One, Infinity Ward needed to scale down the native resolution of the game to 720p for that console.

As along-time Call of Duty and Xbox fan, I can tell you that this is completely unacceptable. But the key issue here is what recourse makes sense. Put another way, is the screen resolution enough of an issue to make me—or others—walk away from the Xbox One and adopt the PS4 as well?

The shorter answer is probably not. Truth be told, I prefer the Xbox, generally, over PlayStation for a number of reasons. I think the exclusive games are better on Xbox, I think Xbox Live, despite its costs, is vastly superior to PlayStation Network, and I trust Microsoft more than Sony to deliver on the type of console I prefer.

But the biggest reason to tilt towards Xbox is a simple one. It's the controller. The Xbox 360 controller today is, by far, the superior video game controller. And looking at the evolutionary changes both Microsoft and Sony made to their respective controllers for the next gen, this will clearly be true going forward as well. I would rather not contort myself to a smaller, hard to hold and use controller like that offered by Sony.

I think.

The thing is, I'll be getting both console regardless. And I'll test them fairly, and we'll see.

But the Call of Duty aspect of this is troubling to me. While I dabble in other games, I am very much a Call of Duty gamer. And one of the other huge advantages on Xbox for two years now is that the DLC (downloadable content—map packs and so on) happens first on Xbox. This is a big deal. It really is.

One more point just to balance things out further. When Halo 3 first shipped for the Xbox 360, it was the first Halo game for that console. But gamers uncovered the fact that it did not run in HD, but rather in some weird sub-HD resolution, which Microsoft later explained was so that it could maintain a consistent frame rate. This is of course the exact same reason Infinity Ward is using 720p for Ghosts on the Xbox One. And Halo 3 looked fantastic, in the day.

I guess we'll see what happens. But the side-by-side comparisons are going to be interesting.

Discuss this Article 104

How can this be? The hardware is nearly identical on these two consoles. Is the operating system holding back the Xbox One? That can be the only answer. If so, then Microsoft needs to make some software updates immediately so games like Call of Duty can run at 60 fps while displaying at 1080p.

I don't get why Microsoft seems to ALWAYS start in a hole and then slowly climb out. For goodness sakes, START at the TOP guys.

For one, it's well known, but often forgotten, that first gen titles for new consoles tend to be inferior, and don't use the hardware to its fullest potential. The developers don't have a whole lot of time with the final configurations of the hardware, and they're under ridiculous time crunches, so they do what they can. Still, it's totally possible it was easier for them to wring the power out of the PS4 version more easily up front, which isn't a good thing for Microsoft, but it's too early to assume the Xbox One can't keep pace as developers come to grips with the hardware and OS(es).

Secondly, we should also look and see what other companies do with their launch titles.

Well, add EA, as Battlefield 4 will run natively at 900p on PS4, and only 720p natively on Xbox One.

These are the most experienced developers out there, with huge and talented teams. I agree that, even so, they remain new to this hardware, so greater experience with developing for this platform may result in a closer race over time.

I suppose time will tell, and they may end up being so close in the end that one can't really get excited. The constant stream of bad news for the Xbox One nearing launch day is still really disappointing, however. Given all of Microsoft's strengths, I was kind of hoping the Xbone would be a home run, rather than an "almost as good as ...."

But it is not the same. Yes they both use a AMD 8 core CPU and a AMD GPU that share memory in this new configuration that AMD has created (forget the name).

The GPU in the Xbox-720P is equal to a AMD 7790 and the PS4 is equal to 7870. That is 768 stream processors vs 1152. It does not stop there. The PS4 GPU addresses memory at 256bits vs 192 for the Xbox 720p.

The PS4 uses GDDR5 memory which is up to 40% faster than the Xbox 720p GDDR3 memory.

Faster GPU attaching to a faster memory bus at a higher bit rate. Hence the PS4 can handle the game at 1080p at 60FPS.

That, unless Xbox, like other things Microsoft is planning to go on a faster release cycle (i.e. 2-3 yrs. vs 5-7 yrs.).
But, either way, what xbone is just lower spec hardware at higher price point.
I understand and in fact in support of Microsoft's decision to bundle Kinect with Xbone, but the price is just simple to damn high.

I think the memory thing is a bit overstated, it's the stream processor discussion I think that makes the difference plus the slight differences in bus and address configuration. GDDR is faster than DDR, but not in the same way. GDDR is optimized for wide open large and wide transfers needed for video (textures, triangle data, etc.). DDR by combination is optimized for narrower and more choppy (i.e. random access) access that would kill throughput on GDDR. It's probably obvious then that a heavy texture and feature game like COD would run faster given that on the PS4 than on the XB1.

It remains I think to be seen if that's the case in everything that comes to the platform however. It will still be better I think than anything the 360 can turn out.

Also keep in mind that those other '2 operating system' take up some resources as well, so it's entirely possible that this is some overall platform immaturity in the hyper-visor setup in XB1 on top of this. The OS resources on the XB1 are far more demanding (relatively) than the PS4, where the OS can probably essentially get out of the way during game play.

If you look at a lot of the other limits on the PS4 side, I think you can see some of this at play. No streaming of music, etc. other than from the Sony store during game play, nothing like Skype other than in game chat, no snap function, no web browser, etc. etc. etc.

The platform differences are there no doubt, but they are optimized to do different things for different markets. XB1 will never be profitable if it only targets XB360 market, it has to grow and I think Sony has a lot more to prove in profitability with a gaming optimized console than potentially does MS.

Memory speed does not mean anything. All of that 40 % on PS4 goes to waste because RAM speed is the last bottleneck. But graphics card on PS4 is noticeably faster and it is the exact part that makes the difference in gaming because it is the part that does most of the graphics rendering. CPU just needs to be fast enough to not to be bottleneck for GPU. Everything else is just nice to have for loading times etc.

BUT the graphics APIs are totally different, DX11.2 and Sony's what ever API they have made. So it remains to be seen what kind of image quality and effects these machines will produce.

The hypervisor has very little to do, it just apportions resources between the other OSs. The processor will raise an exception to the hypervisor when one of the guest OSs does something that steps outside its view of the system, for example changing page tables. The guest OS, if it's aware that it's running on a hypervisor, can make a 'hypercall' to the hypervisor to do that task, which is usually faster than attempting the reserved operation and taking the hardware exception.

The main recent improvement in x86/x64 hardware virtualization is Second Level Address Translation. Intel calls this Extended Page Tables (EPT) and AMD Rapid Virtualization Indexing. This technology lets the virtual machine manage its own memory in hardware without requiring either a hypercall or doing a protected operation that would raise an exception.

The 'apps' OS - which will be essentially Windows 8.1 - shouldn't be getting any interrupts or CPU time if the user is not currently interacting with an app.

I believe the purpose of the VM structure is to allow the games to be written essentially to 'bare metal', while allowing a certain amount of portability - as the game VM will be presented with synthetic rather than real devices - and not allowing the game to actually trash the hardware. Meanwhile, apps can be written to Windows Runtime and therefore should be much easier to write than equivalent apps on the Xbox 360 (and be portable from Windows 8.1); it should also be possible to upgrade the apps OS to later versions of Windows Runtime without affecting the game environment.

Yes. The PS3 controller was much too small for most people last gen. Everything points to the PS4 controller be a much improved offering. Like Paul, I prefer the Xbox controller layout, but what really prevented me from using the PS3 was not the different layout, but simply the size and cheapness of the controller. Fixing these things is going to make the switch from Xbox to Playstation easier for a lot of Xbox gamers, which is bad for Microsoft seeing as they've done nearly everything wrong with the Xbox brand in the last couple of years.

It is what it is, but I have yet to see anything negative written about the PS4 controller. For the most part everyone agrees that it's much better than the PS3 and that it's extremely comfortable to use. We'll see.

It is much better than the DS3. I already bought one (you can now at gamestop) and have been using it as my primary ps3 controller. The sticks and triggers are much improved, its also a bit wider so its more comfortable to hold. That being said, I still like my 360 controller more than the DS4. The offset thumb sticks are just better in my opinion. Like this gen, I will be getting both at launch (ps4 for exclusives; xb1 for multiplats and exclusives).

COD Ghosts is coming to like every gaming platform new and old... I am sure they are not taking time to optimize the game on every console.

Besides... there are soooo many more advantages the XBOne has over the PS4 that something like this doesn't even phase me. Besides... well see if console can't keep... I would bet an update comes out before then end of the year that turns it up to 1080 on the xbox.... they probably just don't have time to optimize the game before launch.

How is this a Xbox One problem that their tools and engine cannot render frames smoothly at 60fps? The consoles hardware is on par with PS4 and is definitely capable of handling the frames .. I look forward to the side by side comparison's.

Hi, the most important reason is the more complex shared memory architecture of the Xbox One. Developers will need more time to fully optimise their game engines to run at 1080p on these systems. Some first party titles are achieve this (Forza runs 1080p/60fps)

Upscale = Stretching to fit the screen (no border). If anything it will help to highlight the difference.

Also the Xbox is doing this to keep the frame rate up. Over at Eurogamer.net that have a very detailed review of BF4 on both the Xbone and PS4. Not only is the PS4 at a higher res (900p vs 720p) but it keeps a higher frame rate when the game gets busy.

It's a hell of a lot more than just stretching. It's up-sampling. The same way DVDs can be made to look MUCH better on HD TVs by the upscaling tech in DVD players. Xbox One has a sophisticated upscaling ability that in most cases makes the two look very comparable. This has been verified in lots of side-by-side comparisons, where you'd expect to see far more dramatic differences.

Right, this is no different than what DVD players have been doing for years with 720P and anamorphic content. It's not stretched (that would look like your LCD monitor does when you take a 4:3 image and put it on a 16:9 display with no black bars). This is mathematical interpolation which can be done very successfully and with very little artifacting if done correctly.

You are talking about just one game and this article about Call of Duty. There will be other games better optimized for Xbox One and Ps4 will be the inferior one in those cases, it is a matter of coding. Do you realize that even though Ps3 was somewhat more powerful than Xbox 360, 360 never looked any worse and looked better in several cases with multiplatform games, especially at the beginning of the war when code wasn't optimized for Ps3, and it was due to 360's superior upscaling chip and developer's lack of understanding of Ps3's hardware?

I'm dying to know the answer to "why." I'm sure the explanation will be dragged out of Infinity Ward one way or another in the near future.

If there is some fundamental hardware related issues that hamstrings developers from easily getting games to run in 1080p native at 60 fps -- or, rather, with comparable ease to developing for the PS4 -- then perhaps the moniker "Xbone" has been well earned.

Honestly, I can't think of a single detail regarding the various features of each of the new next gen consoles that has been discussed in the press that hasn't made Sony come out sounding like the winner. How hard can it be for the greatest software company on the planet, and one with MS's depth of financial resources and engineering talent, to design a games console that is simply equal to the competition, to say nothing of better. There is even less excuse for this now, after so many more years of experience and success in the console gaming market than when the 360 debuted.

Probably for some, but for the majority, I don't think it will make a difference. The detractors will grab onto something like this though to spew their Microsoft hatred. I think that Xbox One will do well with someone like me that is looking for a high-end entertainment device that also plays games.

Looking at slow motion video to see the subtle differences in detail is only one aspect.

This video was part of a Eurogamer.net review that also looks at FPS. Not only is the PS4 using a higher res in BF4 (900p vs 720p) but it consistently did it at a higher FPS. When things got really busy on the screen the Xbox slowed down a lot more than the PS4.

The combination of less detail and lower FPS at times is pretty bad over all.

To me the video for XBOX ONE has more detail. You can see it in the rocks, the grass and the objects throughout the game. The lighting and colors look more vibrant. In this case 720P up-scaled is kicking the crap out of 1080P native.

Indeed, X1 seems to have better texture filtering than PS4 and PS4 picture looks blurrier. But otherwise it looks a bit better. However PC trashes both of them, and one can only imagine how much better PC will be just in two years...

At 1:31-1:40 look at the legs of the guy crawling back. Camo in PS4 is clearly more pronounced. The feet of the helicopter on the XO has more jaggy lines. The shadows of the helicopter's passenger and cockpit has better transition from dark to light on the PS4, XO is just... black. In fact, all the shadows in the XO are generally darker.

If you're only using them for games it's hard to disagree with you (assuming you don't love Titanfall).

However, Microsoft has provided stats in the past that show vast amounts of Xbox Live time (more than half??) are spent doing things other than gaming (Netflix, Hulu, streaming MP3's, etc). If apps/services are important, you may still prefer Xbox One.

Now can the new Microsoft CEO finally give up on this pointless Console distraction, and get the Windows OS team to focused upon Tablets and Phones. Support to WP is held up, because part of the core OS team is diverted on XBox OS support. Just silly, for such a small market.

Yep, running at 1080p and dropping frames while doing it won't do the PS4 version any favors. Of course we'll only know when we see it. Even then it might be one of those things that you don't see very often, except maybe on large multiplayer maps with lots of players.

Haven't touched a PS4 controller but the PS3 one is awful. I played COD on it last night and my hands started to hurt after 30 minutes of game play. I don't have this problem with the Xbox 360 remotes. It contours to your hand which allows the muscles to relax throughout breaks in heavy game play. I'm a little disappointed to see ghosts won't have native support but as Paul said I'm also buying the XBOX One for other reasons. Would I like 1080P yes, will this be fixed down the road via software updates? Probably what will be interesting is to see the difference in load times, I assume PS4 will take a hit.

Actually in most review that I have seen the reviewers are PC gamers and they are shocked at how well the games look. Both for BF4 and COD. Most review of BF4 put the next gen versions at "high" pc settings. According to the steam database of PC users less than 40% of them have hardware that can run BF4 on medium settings.

So yes if you have a $500 - $1000 vide card setup then the next gen boxes seem behind. However for more than 60% of PC steam users their PC's are behind the next gen.

That's what I was thinking. I know a lot of rigs for desktop use that can't push 1080p high or ultra settings. It takes a beast of a machine to do that for Cry games for instance. Hell even WOW can now tap out a medium box on Ultra settings in a 25 man raid if you're not careful.

Unfortunately especially AAA games are mostly being developed for consoles nowadays, so having an expensive card is easily for vain. Fortunately along the next-gen consoles games will take a step forward again.

In the other hand when you see what kind of cards are out or will be out soon it's clear consoles are already out of the date. The price of the console you will get _much_ more powerful graphics card already.

I guess there's going to be wide range of Steam Machines available - well any device with x86 CPU is "potential" Steam Machine. Just download SteamOS and install it. Valve's weakest demo machine is something like i3+GTX660+16G so it's quite "budget model" and I wouldn't be surprised if there's ~100€ Steam Machines in near future that runs most of the casual games just fine.

Okay, the difference is that this generation anyone with a half decent PC from the past 5 years can stick 8GB of memory and a top flight graphics card in for the same price as an XBOne (8GB + GTX780 for example) and get a better result than either console on launch. With a cheaper games. The ability to run almost all the past, present and future multi platform titles at 1080p+. I've got an XBOne pre-ordered for Peggle 2 and Fifa 14 simply because EA based the PC version on the current-gen version. I wouldn't even think about spending more money on versions of stuff like BF4, COD Ghosts, Need For Speed Rivals etc when they worse. That's ignoring the obvious fact alluded to in the article about impending 4k, which neither console is ever going to be able to do properly. Or Occulus Rift, properly. Or 120hz+. So, yea, Peggle 2 and Fifa 14 are why I have an XbOne on order and I suspect Sony will use the PS4 for 4k film streaming so I guess I'll get that as well. For most games they're already obsolete IMO.

Cheaper price. Faster hardware. New PS4 controller that has gotten great reviews. New PSN network that now has cross game chat, equal to Xbox Live (8 people in a com party). Cross game chat was the only real thing missing with PSN IMO. Plus PS+ and all the free games at $49 vs Xbox Live at $59. Yes there is game for gold....but forever?...for the Xbone?

The faster hardware was nothing but rumors until now. Both BF4 (better game IMO) and COD both are only running at 720 on the Xbone. Those rumors are now truth.

Every single time a AAA multi-platform game is released for this generation there will be this comparison.

Since when was cheaper better? Xbox One Live will have over 300,000 servers supporting it. PSN 75K, do you honestly trust Sony when it comes to software? They couldn't even secure PSN last year and their UI and entire experience has been substandard compared to Xbox 360. Yes their hardware specs are a little better but you gotta have good software to keep up with the game.